Lecture notes from September 24, 2007
Further readings: Fashion Marketing (obviously, about fahion marketing;)); Logomania (about global branding)PS! I translated the notes from Swedish into English, so I ask for understanding when some stuff might sound/seem odd.
I don't know again why the lecture had co-name "Gucci example". Preiholt slightly talked about Gucci, but concentrated more on the fashion industry in general, especially on lux-industry.
"Fashion kills you not with fury, but coldness" - he started with the quote from one of the funniest myth-creating illuminating cliché-like fashion movies "Devil wears Prada". I must admit that I'm not the big fan of the movie, but it was and would once again be interesting to see it from the social scientist point of view. Håkan Preiholt brought some other examples of the movies that are considered as constructing the image of fashion-village. For example the Wall Street movie that claims that greed is good. If you want a friend, get a dog. In my opinion, this is very true when we look how media-stars like Paris Hilton or other represent their interest into clothes and small almost invisible dog-look-alikes. They represent theirselves as difficult-to-catch individuals, who don't care so much about humans, but instead of dogs for instance.
Fashion goes along with, is influenced by and influences itself the phenomena like internationalization and globalization. Internationalization shows that a company has a home, but globalization shows that a company can actually function outside its own home-conditions. But the criticism of globalization consists of the idea that globalizing enterprises are actually oppressing the other markets. For example Western companies extending to Africa. Against that kind of free-market there is the protectionism
Fashion is communicated by brands. This means that brands are not connected to products, but the idea of products. But brands also cause trouble, brands have had the power that certain communities have started to fight against this kind of dominance. For example the WTO meeting in Seattle in 1999 called "The Nike Disaster" where weaponed protection was needed to protect the NY Niketown.
A postmodern company American Apparel in turn sees to be the opposite example. Their slogan "We always produce in America and not in Asia" has worked 20 years now and been pretty successful.
Right now there are policy documents that seem to form the future of brand market:
1) PRI - The Principles for Responsible Investment
2) UN Global Compact - everything from the rights to corruption
3) Amnesty business
***
On the day that the lecture was held there was the "Rena Kläder" event in Stockholm. Organized by Fjällraven (the outdoor clothing company) och Gudrun Sjödén from the BSCI, Business Social Compliance Initiative. Fjällraven is a Swedish stock-enterprise with 743 SEK on the market. The business secret of Fjällraven is the ethical code within their business. And in Sweden they also have this SGS Institute that inspects the companies to make sure they act ethically. Anyway, this "Rena Kläder" (Fair Clothes) event was driven by Swedish Church youth, röda korsets ungdomsförbud, If metal, Fair Trade Center, Handelsanställdas förbund etc. a network of initiators who support the idea of fair clothing.
***
Talking about luxury and lux-production we might also talk about lux-industry. This consists also of the networks of film-making, branding, celebrities and so on. When we look back and look in the present, we have very good example in the body of Marie Antoinette and a Hollywood movie produced of the idea of luxurious lifestyle. Luxury is a funny thing - it seems to be everywhere, almost no-one can afford it but everyone seems to want it. Many desire it when there are only a few in exi (Berry 1994, about the Bond ad). By luxury it is meant here fashion couture, ready-to-wear and accessories, perfumes and cosmetics, wines and spirits, watches and jewelry. What's the thing with luxury? - it is the most often used word within advertising, therefore it has created the want for luxurious things, without any sensible reason actually. Some of the mainstream brands have started to use this extreme desire for lux and use high fashion designers to create for them (H&M with Lagerfeld etc).
Further I will give a brief overview of the largest conglomerates in lux-industry:
LWMH - directed by Bernaud Arnault. Embraces Christian Dior (John Galliano, Hedi Slimane), Louis Vuitton (Marc Jacobs), Marc by Marc Jacobs, Givenchy (Riccardo Tisci), Fendi (Karl Lagerfeld).
ONLY THE BRAVE GROUP - directed by Renzo Rosso. Embraces Diesel, Martin Margiela, Sophia Kokosalaki... Renzo Rosso is the establisher of Diesel brand and the fashion-conglomerate is named "The coolest of the biggest"
PPR: directed by Francois Henri Pinault. Embraces Gucci; department store Printemps in Paris; Ellos, Puma, Alexander McQueen... PPR's chief competitors in luxury goods conglomerates are LVMH and Richemont groups.
GUCCI GROUP: directed by Robert Polet. Embraces Gucci (Frida Giannini), Yves Saint Laurent (Stefano Pilatti). Gucci is related to the word 'classical' or nostalgic, if you wish. In this context we can talk about Audrey Hepburn in 1940's and 50's, about Grace Kelly, Jackie O handbag and so on. To be honest, they produce cheap, but sell expensive. That's it. "It even happens in the best families." Tom Ford's Gucci was known for hedonism, today Frida Giannini creates the soul of Gucci.
PRADA GROUP: directed by Patrizio Bertelli. Embraces Prada, Miu Miu, Azzedine Alaïa. Thinking exercise. Do you think of Prada when buying Miu Miu? (Miu Miu is the cheaper brand by Prada, though not cheap at all, but still Praa-da). Prada is one of the biggest fashion-houses in the world. They have enormous brand family embracing also Armani which in turn embraces Emporio Armani, Armani Casa, AJ...
PUIG GROUP: embraces Nina Ricci, Carolina Herrera, Kurt Geiger.
Annually, over 100 international leading brands are bought over by Management Buyout.
Wanna know what makes profit? Here it comes:
- media exposure
- famous persons
- the name of the designer
- the growth of business
Case-study of Ralp Lauren. The whole organization could grow because the enormous popularity of his Polo-shirts - "I was in a world I didn't know and I was in a new game." But the opposite example too - "I heard RL stock is down and I was thinking... I don't need this guy's suit."
Case-study of Prada. Prada is famous with its vertical integration. They have the high control over production and distribution. Prada has 250 fully owned shops around the world keeping the tight control over retail activities, therefore it avoids franchise agreements, licences and duty-free shops. Everything is in the hands of the company. Famous product: Kelly-Bag. Prices begin from 200 000 Swesish Crowns.
Case-study of Marni. No advertising at all! Concentrates on the shows and catwalk-events. The slogan, logo, sign, signifyer - they must not be shown
Case-study of Benetton. Benetton goes hand in hand with the society-debate. They are famous for their advertisements.
My own conclusion to this hard business-talk would be that we can really talk about fashion clothing versus fashion business. Well suited men struggle for prestigue and money, not for trends. They are totally unlike ordinary followers of fashion. There we have this WASP man - White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. A man who has been rich for several generations.
No comments:
Post a Comment